NEW ROMNEY VIDEO: In 1985, He Said Bain Would "Harvest" Companies for Profits

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
So basicly, Romeny was just "redistributing" wealth....from a failing company, to a company that was succeding...where the money could be used to help someone else...or another company that could be fixed...instead of a dying one

No, that is not what he was doing at all.
Did you even read any of this thread?
The OP laid it out very well and put some effort into a lengthy and detailed explanation.
What did you not understand?

reply to post by RealSpoke



Mitt Romney a parasite? This coming from an avowed Socialist???

The irony here is just too rich.

reply to post by wascurious

Originally posted by wascurious

I mean of all places. Partisanship, party, even most politics aside. You would think that ATS would not be a place to find cheerleaders for a corporate shill like this man. I get all the people that hate Obama so much they have decided they like Romney but I did not expect them to find ATS. I thought people here were capable of supporting/hating Obama and completely separately also seeing the huge faults Romney has. Most of them fit right in with most of the thread on here.
He stands for things like Monsanto profiting over people getting fat and sick and dead.
He stands for things like poisoning the air with scary toxic chemicals if it makes the company more money.
He stands for supporting Communist regimes if their slave labor can turn him a better, non US taxed profit.
I thought ATS would see through this guy all the way around. Not just some people.

Let's assume all you say about Romney is true.

My point is not all business men who also use the term 'harvest' in an investment context are Romney.

His use of the term also doesn't demonstrate what you say about him. It a specious form of outrage. And frankly, what most seem to be saying in here and similar threads is business success equates to some form of evil.

This country is toast.

Originally posted by Domo1
So Romney was highly successful at his job. What a bastard! Obviously we can't have someone that can turn a profit in charge! Was job creation his goal at the time? No. Return on investment was, and he did a great job..

Exactly.

I can't tell if some people in this thread are actually collectivists or just ignorant.

Upon reflection, I guess there is no difference.

Originally posted by loam

It drives me nuts that people find this offensive. Success has become so villified, I'm convinced we have become a nation of lazy-ass, envious, whiners.

Success?
He screwed people out of jobs and hid his money overseas.
What did he do that was successful other than basically take money other people earned and stick them out in the cold?

'Harvest' means they bought companies, made them more valuable through investment, and later sold them for a profit.

Then why did the companies close, fire all employees, and move manufacturing to slave wage friendly countries if the companies were doing better?

The fact that people are offended by the term is simply stupid.

What term?

What should they have done? Bought businesses....invested heavily in them...and then lost money????

No, they should have left those businesses alone. I know quite a few people that had great jobs with an office supply company in NY state and were ALLLLLLLLL laid off when it was bought by staples as a distribution center and then shut down.

Staples could have kept being staples and my friends company could have continued to grow as it was as a competitor to Staples.

edit on 28-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)

How about because you have no clue what you are talking about.

Romney is a corporate socialist. Privatizing profits and socializing losses.

He will pass legislation in full force of trickledown economics.

The country will starve waiting for a trickle of money that never appears and the ultra-wealthy double their portions in their portfolios.

If you arn't rich and vote for him you are a fool.l. If you are rich he is your guy.

It amazes me the same people that defend him say he must have miss spoke and are the same ones that claim how smart he is. It’s one or the other you can’t have them both.

The man has said so many things already you have to be willfully ignorant if you think he is anything but a corporate pig.




He isnt just out of touch he is soulless.

reply to post by wascurious

Originally posted by wascurious

How about because you have no clue what you are talking about.

I was just thinking the same about you.

Again, let's assume everything you say is true. Your solution is to have government produce utopia for us?

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by loam

 

Solyndra employees and Taxpayers agree!

Agree on what exactly?
Romney drives hundreds of companies into the ground and he is a success story.
All you got on Obama is Solyndra and all he did was give them a loan.
This is such a piss poor argument.

Originally posted by loam

I was just thinking the same about you.

And yet you refuted nothing where as I pointed out why you were wrong.

Again, let's assume everything you say is true. Your solution is to have government produce utopia for us?

Is it?
I am not sure I remember saying that.
You would not be completely making that up just try and win an argument would you without actually addressing facts or issues would you?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Romney personifies what the GOP stands for. Big business and profits.

He is their poster child.

It's sad to see people on ATS cheering on a corporate leech to be president.

lol, that sounds familiar

reply to post by wascurious


You're not my science project and I don't engage in exercises in futility well.

If you can't reeducate yourself...at least you'll have plenty of company.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Fair enough. I didn't mean you.

But i swear the way I read some of the comments in this thread, it's filled with collectivist ideology.

:shk:

Obsessing about a term used in a business context....one that frankly is a term of art...just seems stupid to me.

edit on 28-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)

No one is obsessing over the term. The OP laid out in great detail (which you still pretend not to see) what the problem is and it is not the term being used.

Just so you know, communities are collectives. I hate to break it to you but if not for collectivism you would be typing angrily to yourself on a typewriter you built yourself and not one word of it would ever be able to reach my screen.

Originally posted by Domo1
So Romney was highly successful at his job. What a bastard!

Another person that did not even read the OP.
None of it was about him being successful.
You just came in with the only talking points you all have.

Obviously we can't have someone that can turn a profit in charge! Was job creation his goal at the time? No. Return on investment was, and he did a great job.

Um....he is claiming it is that experience right there that will make him a great job creator. So is he stupid or are you?

He's always done a good job. While in politics he listened to his constituents and did what they asked, even if he didn't agree.

He is one of the least popular Governors in his state's history. His state is going for Obama big time.

Don't let reverse racists warp your mind (even the ones that pretend they don't lick Obama boot), Romney is the only choice.

How about you address the #ing topic for a change instead of COLLECTIVELY getting your off topic talking points together and marching in here one by one to simply repeat some nonsense about success being vilified when not once in the OP or any of his follow up posts is it.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


I'm not a socialist, I'm liberal. Two totally different concepts here.

And there's nothing parasitical about socialism, it is nothing but the workers owning the means of production. But then again like most right wingers you have no idea what it even is because you seem to lack the motivation to read political literature, including Adam Smith, the constitution, and anything written by the founding fathers. Yet will harp on about how evil communism is, your love of capitalism, and returning the country the way the "founding fathers intended it to be".

reply to post by sonnny1


Solyndra and all the companies that failed account for 3.2% of the investment so in all accounts it is a huge success but the numbers have been cherry picked and fed to the public by propaganda pieces like Faux news. They don’t call Faux news viewers low information voters for nothing.

The amount spent by DARPA pales in comparison and the return on investment is nowhere near what this has been. Not to mention the investment creates jobs and the companies are leading us to renewable energy dependence. Solar investments pay themselves off on your home in 5 years and that was with older technology now by all accounts it is half that. So in two to three years they will be generating pure profit.

Most of the companies including Solyndra have paid back up 80% of the investment after bankrupting.

reply to post by loam


Humans are collectivist by nature. Hence why we form family groups and have loyalty to friends. If we do not socialize we will go insane.

reply to post by RealSpoke


It was good.
It stuck in my head.


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I am getting sloppy and I am real tired so I am out.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Right. Let's pretend you didn't understand my use of the term.

Originally posted by Domo1
So Romney was highly successful at his job. What a bastard! Obviously we can't have someone that can turn a profit in charge! Was job creation his goal at the time? No. Return on investment was, and he did a great job. He's always done a good job. While in politics he listened to his constituents and did what they asked, even if he didn't agree. Don't let reverse racists warp your mind (even the ones that pretend they don't lick Obama boot), Romney is the only choice.

Romney made money regardless if the company failed or succeeded. There was no way for him to not make returns on an investment so your argument sucks.

reply to post by loam


And are you pretending Mitt Romney isn't a "collectivist" or what?